Every time I read this, I catch something. Earlier, it was TD pointing out the title called for measurement. Just now, I realized the word "consensus" is in the title. I had been reading it from my own very narrow perspective.
Simple answer - no consensus will ever be reached.
Even if we adopt TD's very good suggestion of broad goals, and his 4 ideals are good, then the debate about each course will be whether they compromised to much on say, golf in the name of environmental sensitivity (actually, a very common situation and debate, modified somewhat by the fact that such enviro stuff might have been strictly mandated via law, or public hearing where someone's emotional opinion can become law as it relates to that project.
It's a tough subject because in part, every architect does want to have at least a slightly different set of ideals they are known by. And, while different, rules resulting from those ideals and experience, do tend to form. Whether you fight those and think of every project from scratch, or embrace those, leaving yourself open to change when warranted is two sides of the same coin, and not that far apart. Plus, does any of us really know what we have ingrained in our subconscious? Who has time for golf architecture philosophy therapy?
Lastly, it does occur that most architects have penned articles and such describing the "ideal" course in their terms. From a purely technical point of view, we can all arrive at ideals (sans the land to actually apply them) as CBM and others have. In essence, I have played the gca version of "100 questions". If you combine the answers, you have a pretty good idea what your ideals (and potential design rules) are, again all things being equal, and when designing on a real site, not all things are equal.
Think about some simple single issue, yes/no questions, all prefaced with the phrase "all things being equal and if the land allows." To use TD's examples above:
Would you prefer all par 3's to play to different directions regarding wind?
Would you prefer all par 3's to play to the same or different lengths?
Of 3 or 4 par 5 holes, how many should be reachable? How many not? How many as "tweeners?"
Do you include one driveable par 4 (yes/no)
Green size - Small, medium, large, mixed?
Tees - square, round, free form?
You get the idea. Not that some of these opinions can't also vary over time, or among different sites, such as a preference for rectangle tees, in addition to the site (I just couldn't find a site for a short 4....)
And I do disagree with TD's last post, that if you have an ideal of 4 compass points for par 3's that you automatically have to "demean" any course that doesn't. I don't see it as that black and white. In essence, if ( a big if) you have answered your 100 questions, the course will probably only match 50-75 of them anyway, reality being what it is. Missing on any one of your ideal criteria shouldn't take the course right down to the dumpster in anyone's opinion.
Maybe you mentally grade your ideals in 4 levels of importance. So, 4 great par 3's gets a higher point balance than 4 different length/direction par 3's because that is a third level ideal, or whatever. What if you get 3 directions out of 4? Not bad, if the two same direction holes are quite different in how they use the wind. I just use that kind of thing to evaluate the many prelim routings we do, but for me it's a third level importance. You check the 3's, 5's, long and short 4's, but I never expect perfection. From time to time, it makes me select one routing (or portion of one routing) over another as slightly better, if the holes all work. (and that is the biggest misconception here, that on almost any site there is one "best routing." In reality, "best" is subjective, too, depending on what your personal design preferences are.
Side story, back when we designed courses for Jim Colbert's firm he firmly insisted on those 4 directions for par 3's (but even he had to acquiesce sometimes due to site) One day we are working on one of our projects not his, and my staff is obsessing about par 3 direction. I tell them this isn't for Jim, so don't worry so much about it. We all laugh, and it freed them up for some pretty good routings without that par 3 balance.
Now, I'm just rambling. But, see the 100 questions part. If you ask (and answer) yes/no questions on very specific topics, you probably get an idea of where your mental ideals/rules will probably take you on most projects. Check that. On most project and sites you might dream about and never actually get to design. I think we all agree the real world is a different animal.